Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Chiming in on the "Atheists Have Higher IQs" Canard

Atheists want to think that they are smarter than people who hold religious convictions. This belief is reflected in the decision of some of their numbers to refer to themselves as "brights." Recently, another atheist has drummed up the old canard that atheists have a higher IQ than most people. According to an article published at Telegraph.co.uk entitled 'God is not just for the stupid' say Christianity's clever people, "Professor Richard Lynn, Ulster University's emeritus professor of psychology, said that more members of the 'intellectual elite' considered themselves to be atheists than the national average."

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

* * *

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."

He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.

Paul Woolley, director of the think-tank Theos, responded to this statement by noting that "Religion is a complex phenomenon and Professor Lynn's explanation is simplistic. He has recycled the long-disproven thesis of inevitable secularisation."

"Academia had a religious origin - the first universities were originally established by the Church, and some of the finest academics in the world today, not to mention some of the greatest minds in history, are deeply religious.

"The research fails to take account of a variety of cultural factors that would affect the outcome of opinion polls and surveys, and makes a series of unproven assumptions, not least that a high level of education is synonymous to a high IQ."

Others joined Paul Wooley in responding critically to Professor Lynn.

Professor Gordon Lynch, director of the Centre for Religion and Contemporary Society at Birkbeck College, London, said it failed to take account of a complex range of social, economic and historical factors.

"Linking religious belief and intelligence in this way could reflect a dangerous trend, developing a simplistic characterisation of religion as primitive, which - while we are trying to deal with very complex issues of religious and cultural pluralism - is perhaps not the most helpful response," he said.

Dr Alistair McFadyen, senior lecturer in Christian theology at Leeds University, said the conclusion had "a slight tinge of Western cultural imperialism as well as an anti-religious sentiment".

Dr David Hardman, principal lecturer in learning development at London Metropolitan University, said: "It is very difficult to conduct true experiments that would explicate a causal relationship between IQ and religious belief. Nonetheless, there is evidence from other domains that higher levels of intelligence are associated with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and overturn strongly felt institutions."

While I appreciate the civility of these responses, I think that they are entirely too mild. The idea that religion and IQ are related has been analyzed and rejected at least twice on this blog. My fellow blogger, J.L. Hinman, did a very nice job of evaluating the claims in his post entitled Bogus Atheist Social Sciences: The Myth That Atheists Score Higher on IQ Tests. There, after a lengthy analysis, he makes the point that the studies that are better in terms of sample size, age and number, all point to their being no such correlation. I have made my own evaluation of one of these studies (the most recent one which was then being touted) in a post entitled Lower IQs Lead to Faith in God? where, in part, I believe I do a fair job of demonstrating that a better correlation is between IQ and poverty than IQ and religion.

But what about Professor Lynn's claim that the sharp contrast between the number of people who are believers among the "Royal Society fellows" and the general public? Can it simply be attributed to IQ? The effort to draw that connection based on such meaningless evidence demonstrates how easily someone can accept anecdotal evidence as proof of their position on the most tenuous of grounds.

Consider this: Let's suppose for a moment that the people in the "Royal Society fellows" all have higher IQs (a claim that may not be as obviously true as Professor Lynn would like us to believe). Isn't it just possible that the reason that these oh-so-smart fellows hold a similar view is not so much because they have thought it through but rather because they are indoctrinated that way? Perhaps if they were asked, a full ninety percent of them may say, "I personally have never examined the evidence for God, but . . ." and it doesn't matter what follows the "but" in that sentence because whatever follows would be a mere unexamined adoption of the views they have heard in their inner-circle of fellows.

Having said all of the foregoing, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that some very smart people not only don't find religion important, they are devout atheists. Does that somehow mean that the people with the lower IQs are wrong? Certainly not. In fact, the poor and the less gifted people are going to be attracted to religion more than the gifted and intelligent but not because they aren't smart enough to know better. Instead, people who are gifted and intelligent tend to have a higher view of themselves and their own importance and abilities. In all sincerity, it isn't necessarily a "I'm smarter"-thing, but rather a "I don't need God"-thing. People who already recognize that they aren't as smart or as gifted as other people are more ready to recognize that they need help -- that they cannot make it on their own.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Those who are proud of their own intellect and their gifts are not seeking God, and what they aren't seeking they will never find.

Comments like Professor Lynn's are pure intellectual snobbery, nothing more. He wants to take anecdotal evidence that his fellow elites (who are supposedly smarter -- but that itself is questionable) are often more atheistic as proof that atheists are simply smarter guys. There are so many possible reasons that the higher education community breeds atheists that it is difficult to enumerate them. I have only given a couple of examples, but several more come to mind.

While I respect the views of atheists, they are not smarter than Christians. But then, it doesn't surprise me that many atheists believe this silly claim. After all, since many of their arguments boil down to "I don't believe that . . .", it is important for them to be able to claim that they are smarter and that their beliefs are thus better reasoned. But this claim is unsupported and really all boils down to pride -- and the Bible has a lot to say about pride. (See, e.g., Proverbs 8:13, 11:2, 16:18 and Mark 7:20-22.)

Comments

Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence, though I've met some real morons on both sides, and some real geniuses too. I do think education has something to do with it, what one is taught can certainly effect what they believe. So, I'm not in the group of atheists who think we are smarter.

Using the purported IQ of any group of people to prove something about that group is a mugs game; (and the idea that academic achievement is a useful measure of IQ should be immediately rejected by anyone who's attended a University...)

It all sounds like "Bell Curve" nonsense to me. About as useful as Christian claims that atheists are less moral than believers...;-)

Using the purported IQ of any group of people to prove something about that group is a mugs game; (and the idea that academic achievement is a useful measure of IQ should be immediately rejected by anyone who's attended a University...)

It all sounds like "Bell Curve" nonsense to me. About as useful as Christian claims that atheists are less moral than believers...;-)

get a calender man! Because we need to mark this day, when I almost totally agree with you!

but the only problem is I don't think IQ is relivant to anything. I would rather have grades as a limitation than IQ because you raise your grade much more esialy.

On another discussion board, I postulated the idea that we would see this kind of thing in IQ or educational level. I reasoned this because in order to reject the dominant, conventional, or most widely accepted view, you have to get to the point where you question it first. Thus atheism (minority/alternative viewpoint) has mostly people with higher education under their belt, while Christianity (the dominant/majority viewpoint) has both higher education and most other people, as questioning does not inevitably lead to rejection. I figured that we should expect see this kind of pattern with respect to most ideas, not just those dealing with the question of God.

And then there's the other question, which is to what this whole discussion is relevant. I'm not sure there's much to it at all.

There are two possible implications that come to mind. One is that, if higher IQ were associated with decreased belief in God, that might mean that there is something intellectually deficient about believing in God. But there are plenty of bright people on both sides of this issue, and plenty of arguments on both sides. If it's a matter of intellectual inquiry alone, then it ought to be the arguments that decide, not the demographics.

Second, it has been manifestly a core tenet of Christianity from the start that God regards the poor, the weak, the oppressed over the wise and the rich; the humble over the proud, actually. In view of that, the best the purported demographic here could show is that it has fulfilled a prediction made by Christianity 2000 years ago.

On another discussion board, I postulated the idea that we would see this kind of thing in IQ or educational level. I reasoned this because in order to reject the dominant, conventional, or most widely accepted view, you have to get to the point where you question it first. Thus atheism (minority/alternative viewpoint) has mostly people with higher education under their belt, while Christianity (the dominant/majority viewpoint) has both higher education and most other people, as questioning does not inevitably lead to rejection. I figured that we should expect see this kind of pattern with respect to most ideas, not just those dealing with the question of God.

read my article. of all the studies on the subject, 6 support the idea that atheists have better educated and smarter, 17 support the view that they are not.

I suspect it's more a matter of personality type/temperament than intelligence. The people claiming this are, for the most part, Myers-Briggs Ts. The Myers-Briggs Fs who otherwise map to the same general educational/intellectual patterns are often believers. (Certain Episcopal priests come to mind.)

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.